On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 10:57:57AM -0800, Peter Geoghegan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Heikki Linnakangas > <hlinnakan...@vmware.com> wrote: > >> I think there's zero overlap. They're completely complimentary features. > >> It's not like normal WAL records have an irrelevant volume. > > > > > > Correct. Compressing a full-page image happens on the first update after a > > checkpoint, and the diff between old and new tuple is not used in that case. > > Uh, I really just meant that one thing that might overlap is > considerations around the choice of compression algorithm. I think > that there was some useful discussion of that on the other thread as > well.
Yes, that was my point. I though the compression of full-page images was a huge win and that compression was pretty straight-forward, except for the compression algorithm. If the compression algorithm issue is resolved, can we move move forward with the full-page compression patch? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + Everyone has their own god. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
